For some, it just confirms what we already knew
for others it might be a bit of a shock I'm afraid... 
Full Version: An objective comparison of DSLRs from the DXO people
Might be of interest to some, DXO Labs just made the extensive testing they done public at: http://www.dxomark.com/
For some, it just confirms what we already knew for others it might be a bit of a shock I'm afraid...
For some, it just confirms what we already knew
for others it might be a bit of a shock I'm afraid...
All I know is DXO uses security software that implants itself into the system and is a pain to remove! That alone makes me not respect them. You're bored Jorge!
I wouldn't buy their software but the information is intriguing. DxOMark Sensor ratings don't include resolution. That makes my brain explode.
Their analysis of color performance is interesting.
Their analysis of color performance is interesting.
Look at the dynamic range scores! A total shocker. Fuji at the top, followed by the DEE NINETY?????
Cheers
James
Cheers
James
I don't know.. I tried to find more information about how they actually calculate these numbers, but the results seem somewhat suspect. Basically if I was to believe this, I should toss the D300 in favor of the D60.. The D90 being better than the D300 also? Not sure that is believable but I would buy the D90 being close to the D300. I just can't trust numbers like these that contridict real photo tests..
Well it does help the new camera buyer in the sense it gives a ranking, easy to interpret numbers (whether right or wrong is highly debateable) and it boosts their website traffic. In essence, it's beneficial to those who want to buy "the best" their money can buy and to DXO which is apparently not doing so well.
I still think Jorge is bored though or he's feeling inadequate with his D2X being so low on the list.
I still think Jorge is bored though or he's feeling inadequate with his D2X being so low on the list.
I was just being provocative
and I also wouldn't buy their software, but their testing procedure is reasonably well documented so their results [unless one has well founded arguments] should be taken seriously, and this includes how they calculate the overall sensor mark.
But Drew is right now I am feeling totally inadequate with my D2x, so it is time to upgrade to the D3x
and I also wouldn't buy their software, but their testing procedure is reasonably well documented so their results [unless one has well founded arguments] should be taken seriously, and this includes how they calculate the overall sensor mark.
But Drew is right now I am feeling totally inadequate with my D2x, so it is time to upgrade to the D3x
QUOTE (giftie @ Nov 18 2008, 02:21 AM) 
I was just being provocative
and I also wouldn't buy their software, but their testing procedure is reasonably well documented so their results [unless one has well founded arguments] should be taken seriously, and this includes how they calculate the overall sensor mark.
But Drew is right now I am feeling totally inadequate with my D2x, so it is time to upgrade to the D3x
and I also wouldn't buy their software, but their testing procedure is reasonably well documented so their results [unless one has well founded arguments] should be taken seriously, and this includes how they calculate the overall sensor mark.
But Drew is right now I am feeling totally inadequate with my D2x, so it is time to upgrade to the D3x
The testing process is documented, yes. But the the numbers being calculated are suspect. I have read a description of the process and it listed some caveats..
QUOTE
— DxO Analyzer can only be used to test lenses in combination with a digital sensor. A lens by itself can not be tested, and a lens in combination with a film camera can not be tested.
— In the case of DSLRs and interchangeable lenses, measurements are only meaningful for a specific type of combination. For example, a 135mm lens on a full-frame Canon 1Ds will measure differently than on a reduced frame Canon 10D. This of course is because much more of the lens is being used by the full-frame camera and therefore most measurements will differ due to the difference in coverage.
— Identical lenses, aren't. No two cameras or lenses are the same. Even ones off the same assembly line. It isn't unusual to find significant variance, and indeed some pros typically test a number of lenses of the same brand and type before choosing one.
— Only test results of lenses of similar focal lengths should be compared with each other. Long lenses are always going to perform as well as measure better than wide-angle lenses, regardless of brand or price.
— Don't compare zooms and prime lenses at the same focal length. With very few exceptions prime lenses will always be superior to zooms. The trade-off is convenience.
— Measurements don't tell the whole story. One camera / lens combination may perform better optically than another, yet because of design, handling and other non-measurable performance differences be less desirable for actually producing photographs than one that measures better.
— In the case of DSLRs and interchangeable lenses, measurements are only meaningful for a specific type of combination. For example, a 135mm lens on a full-frame Canon 1Ds will measure differently than on a reduced frame Canon 10D. This of course is because much more of the lens is being used by the full-frame camera and therefore most measurements will differ due to the difference in coverage.
— Identical lenses, aren't. No two cameras or lenses are the same. Even ones off the same assembly line. It isn't unusual to find significant variance, and indeed some pros typically test a number of lenses of the same brand and type before choosing one.
— Only test results of lenses of similar focal lengths should be compared with each other. Long lenses are always going to perform as well as measure better than wide-angle lenses, regardless of brand or price.
— Don't compare zooms and prime lenses at the same focal length. With very few exceptions prime lenses will always be superior to zooms. The trade-off is convenience.
— Measurements don't tell the whole story. One camera / lens combination may perform better optically than another, yet because of design, handling and other non-measurable performance differences be less desirable for actually producing photographs than one that measures better.
It seems to me that using these results to determine which camera to buy is not the smartest thing considering all the variables and even human error and the fact the tests were designed for lens testing primarily. But without full disclosure and truely normalized results, I wouldn't be using the results to make my purchases.
A nice little quick reference site here:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor
Obviously there's more to a camera than just sensor, but this is a good place to start for shoppers and number crunchers.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor
Obviously there's more to a camera than just sensor, but this is a good place to start for shoppers and number crunchers.
QUOTE (rjsimp @ Nov 18 2008, 04:17 AM)
The testing process is documented, yes. But the the numbers being calculated are suspect. I have read a description of the process and it listed some caveats..
It seems to me that using these results to determine which camera to buy is not the smartest thing considering all the variables and even human error and the fact the tests were designed for lens testing primarily. But without full disclosure and truely normalized results, I wouldn't be using the results to make my purchases.
It seems to me that using these results to determine which camera to buy is not the smartest thing considering all the variables and even human error and the fact the tests were designed for lens testing primarily. But without full disclosure and truely normalized results, I wouldn't be using the results to make my purchases.
Well I think there's quite a few variables that can't be taken into account with cameras. I would suspect heat build up with excessive use is one area that's never measured and you'd have to think that would affect sensor performance. This is particularly directed toward underwater use where the camera is in a housing and the user can be shooting and saving over 10 pics a minute. Color performance is an interesting subject. What standard are they using as a benchmark?
As far as I see, this seems to be a measure of best all rounder - based on their own weightings between the variables. As a user I would like to be able to add my own weighting to the importance to each of the criteria.
Alex
Alex
QUOTE (rjsimp @ Nov 17 2008, 05:10 PM)
I just can't trust numbers like these that contradict real photo tests..
Sorry, but numbers can't contradict real photo tests. Photography is a visual art form - the ultimate test IS your perception.
I've said it before and no doubt will say it again. We have unbelievably good equipment available today. To a large extent the differences in 'high' end gear are nuances and require both an educated eye and specific output requirements to differentiate.
I have owned a D2x(flooded), D200(sold), D2xs(still have, can't give away). I could never convince myself that the D2x, D2xs had any better image quality than the D200. My new D300 is much better than any of them, and will be my underwater rig for a long time. My experience correlates very well with the DXO data.
Hal
Hal
Truly this is subjective. I have D2X and D300 cameras and housings. Except for higher ISO I would say IQ is as good or better with the D2X than the D300. The ergonomics and AF are better with the D2X. I like the D300 better because it is smaller and lighter and for the better high ISO. Otherwise the D2X is a better camera.
The LX3 is the best point and shoot I have owned by far. But it is way below any dSLR in IQ. Much further away from any dSLR than indicated by the results published.
The LX3 is the best point and shoot I have owned by far. But it is way below any dSLR in IQ. Much further away from any dSLR than indicated by the results published.
I just noticed that the Sigma SD14's Foveon sensors aren't listed. And also there are all sorts of pricing inaccuracies (funnily enough mostly on the Canon cameras... Jorge? Did you do that? 
) .
I do wonder why they left out the Foveon sensors... the dynamic range on those sensors are amazing.
) .I do wonder why they left out the Foveon sensors... the dynamic range on those sensors are amazing.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.